Any i5 or i7 processors will run it fine. Graphics cards aren't really any issue. A $200 graphics card will run this game pretty dang decently. I use i5 750 and radeon hd 5870. It'll be completely fine

That's almost what I have, except I have two GTX 480s in SLI and my SSD is only 32GB. Yeah, it's a bit overkill, but it's running beta 35+FPS with everything on their highest settings (whether that be "high" or "highest") and all video effects turned on. Crysis is a breeze to run on the system, but I don't care much for the game itself.

Any i5 or i7 processors will run it fine. Graphics cards aren't really any issue. A $200 graphics card will run this game pretty dang decently. I use i5 750 and radeon hd 5870. It'll be completely fine

Edited, Aug 30th 2010 2:13pm by Slapaho

Interested in what you are benchmarking Slapaho? I have a similar setup but 5850 OC'd.

Yeah it's not very good. When I had my i3 930 (I think) I was getting 3400 on high. (That's with the 5870), but now with the i5 750 I'm only getting about 2400. I'm not too worried about it though. I can run Starcraft II on it's highest with no lag whatsoever.

I'm not too worried about it though. I can run Starcraft II on it's highest with no lag whatsoever.

Not knocking your rig, but you do realise that SCII is peanuts right? 90's engine with 2002ish graphic requirements and a few minor new age eye candy pieces thrown in to make you think your money was well spent...

Just making sure you know that part.

Crysis, while pretty, is a system hog. A few recent PC games have achieved the same if not higher quality for less requirements. Shame is that the "but can it run Crysis" bug bit everyone.

RTS require more CPU than GPU. If you want a CPU test, run Sins of Solar Empire at max settings plus 8x+ speed on a 50+ planet system. Your GPU will keep up even if you're running a mid/high-end 2007ish GPU. Your proccessor will cry even if it's an i7/AMD Hexacore.

If you want to test your GPU use a current FPS, I'd say Metro, but it's almost as badly optimized as Crysis.

Yeah it's not very good. When I had my i3 930 (I think) I was getting 3400 on high. (That's with the 5870), but now with the i5 750 I'm only getting about 2400. I'm not too worried about it though. I can run Starcraft II on it's highest with no lag whatsoever.

How come your benchmark was lower with the i5? I'm not too familiar with the i3 930's etc was this a better processor and if so why change? Out of interest I am getting max 7112 low and 4240 on high. I have my i5 overclocked at 4Ghz and the CCC OCing my 5850.

I have been looking at upgrading (already) to the i7 range but they very expensive and the better ones dont fit my socket 1156 :(

How come your benchmark was lower with the i5? I'm not too familiar with the i3 930's etc was this a better processor and if so why change? Out of interest I am getting max 7112 low and 4240 on high. I have my i5 overclocked at 4Ghz and the CCC OCing my 5850.

I have been looking at upgrading (already) to the i7 range but they very expensive and the better ones dont fit my socket 1156 :(

I'm pretty sure the high end i3s have higher mhz than the low end i5s, could be one reason. The OG (ie before the new "official" bench comes out) bench is crap, I think it reads your hz and stuff more than your actual results would be. We all know that a 2.9hz 4 core will out perform a single or dual at the same, but the less cores the more chance it will be factory higher hz... Just a guess.

Yeah i3 was 2.93 ghz and the i5 is 2.66ghz (I think). That could be why my bench mark was so much less. Also I was told that since I have a 5870 graphics card I'd should probably upgrade to i5 or i7 to be safe. Not sure